In the last class, we watched a movie that documented the American Indian Movement occupation at Wounded creek. The film was very moving in that it explained the inspired and strong character of the American Indians.
The video had a lot of information and history, but here are a couple of things that stood out to me and also my thoughts on it:
There was one part of the video where an Indian being interviewed stated that his parents told him and his siblings to "lose the Indian ways--'be Christian'--go to school and learn English". The fact that he was told this by his parents definitely contradicted the American Indian Movement. I think that this prompted him to be involved in the American Indian Movement. There definitely is a sense of survival in what his parents said, but he decided to resist instead. What his parents said actually got to him and he joined the AIM in order to preserve the culture that he is proud of; somewhat "disobeying" his parents. The AIM was an act of survivance for this man; he wanted his native tongue, religious beliefs, and culture to survive and he was part of the resistance.
Another big thing that really stood out to me was the fact that the "hostages" were not in fact "hostages". That they were actually on the Indians' side. It is a bit surprising, but it was great to realize that there was not as much hatred for the Indians as was assumed. This shows that what they have done has been working, so much that the white people understood where they were coming from. Also, the fact that most Americans sided with the Indians helped them in their purpose. Here comes my opinion on this. If I was there when they realized that they were not hostages, I definitely would have been taken aback and reconsidered why the Indians were resisting. If even "my people" were agreeing with this AIM, then there must be a reason.
Whether or not the AIM got what they wanted, I don't think it would have mattered too much. I feel like it is incredibly more meaningful that they reached many many people with their goals and purposes. They inspired many Indians as well. They were able to show that they were proud of their culture and that they were willing to fight for it; they did not just 'be Christian' and accept losing their Indian ways like the man's parents told him to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definately agree with the points that you felt about the video. Just to draw a litte more about the "hostages" I found it interesting that others from the reservation, like the store owner whose store was robbed, were more like a "hostages" and represented more of a hostile attitude toward AIM. I think the use of the "hostages" was a smart plan in drawing white support for the movement. In my opinion if I was there, I would have also questioned the violent resistance.
ReplyDeleteI also agreed with these two points from the documentary. A person's native language, religious beliefs, and cultural background are what one chooses to be identified with. Therefore, it was definitely a critical act of survival and resistance for the Indian man. The fact that the white hostages were supporting the Indians is quite touching. I was actually surprised when the documentary revealed that the hostages were in fact not hostages. Usually, little details like these gets left out of the picture but because of these details that makes an important difference in changing someone's viewpoint. It shows strong character and I admire this about people in my life.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the hostages, that weren't really hostages struck me as well. It was awesome how that lady in the movie stood up for the Indians. I agree with you with the reconsideration that they should have taken in, seeing there own people (White) siding with the Native Americans. It just shows how ignorant some people are.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the hostages was interesting. It all seems to come back to how people hear a story -- through whose lens are these people hostages? Also, what about when Russell Means responds that "We knew as long as there wasn't any danger to any lives but Indian lives then you (the gov't) wouldn't pay attention"? Do you think that is true?
ReplyDelete